They should be able to hold a PhD if they earned it in a just manner. It doesn't mean anyone with any sense has to listen to their nonsense though. It's essentially a PhD in hogwash.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-06 05:56:04)
Poll
Should they be allowed to hold a phD?
| Yes | 53% | 53% - 42 | ||||
| No | 46% | 46% - 36 | ||||
| Total: 78 | ||||||
Is this a bunch of Christians who got a PhD in studying evolutionary biology in an attempt to disprove it or just a bunch of Christian's with PhD's in something entirely different, like a PhD in sociology who are yammering on about?
My money is on the latter. Remember, in a research PhD you learn a vast amount about a very small field. I should know, I'm in my final year of one.
Also people should keep in mind that no matter how many little issues people keep coming up with evolution, it's nothing compared to how unfathomable wrong the scientific theory of creation is.
To answer the questions then, yes they have the right to have a PhD in whatever the hell they got a PhD in. Yes they can spout completely stupid, biased unscientific crap wherever they want. And yes you have the right to say they may have a PhD but they're still stupid, wrong and nuts and ignore them completely
My money is on the latter. Remember, in a research PhD you learn a vast amount about a very small field. I should know, I'm in my final year of one.
Also people should keep in mind that no matter how many little issues people keep coming up with evolution, it's nothing compared to how unfathomable wrong the scientific theory of creation is.
To answer the questions then, yes they have the right to have a PhD in whatever the hell they got a PhD in. Yes they can spout completely stupid, biased unscientific crap wherever they want. And yes you have the right to say they may have a PhD but they're still stupid, wrong and nuts and ignore them completely
what is phd?????
A Doctorate - a Doctor of Philosophy - not a medical doctor but an expert in their profession. For instance a doctor of engineering, etc.Jussimies wrote:
what is phd?????
whatever idc.CameronPoe wrote:
A Doctorate - a Doctor of Philosophy - not a medical doctor but an expert in their profession. For instance a doctor of engineering, etc.Jussimies wrote:
what is phd?????
Thanks for your input.Jussimies wrote:
whatever idc.CameronPoe wrote:
A Doctorate - a Doctor of Philosophy - not a medical doctor but an expert in their profession. For instance a doctor of engineering, etc.Jussimies wrote:
what is phd?????
Last edited by SpaceApollyon (2006-11-06 06:01:43)
If you don't care why ask then get stroppy when someone answers the question?Jussimies wrote:
whatever idc.CameronPoe wrote:
A Doctorate - a Doctor of Philosophy - not a medical doctor but an expert in their profession. For instance a doctor of engineering, etc.Jussimies wrote:
what is phd?????
is jussimies seriously getting indignant when you simply answered his question? wow, that kid needs to settle down.
Remember Me As A Time Of Day
Why the fuck not? Are you saying that they cannot get PHD's because of Religion? Are you insane? Wtf?
If they meet the requirements and pass the tests, give them their fucking degree.
What if you couldnt get something, like a degree because of something you believed in? Wouldnt that piss you off?
Stryyker, I thought better of you.
If they meet the requirements and pass the tests, give them their fucking degree.
What if you couldnt get something, like a degree because of something you believed in? Wouldnt that piss you off?
Stryyker, I thought better of you.
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal
Absolutely not!stryyker wrote:
Do you agree with what Christian phD's are teaching.
They should be allowed to get PhDs though, if they do the work they need. The teachings of many of these Creationist scientists is just nonsensical though and should be banned. Spreading misinformation is a very bad thing. It is easy for anyone with any sort of scientific background to laugh off the theories of Creationists, who always make blatant mistakes (or deliberate ommisions) from the science backing them up. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one they like to misquote all the time, they always leave out the part about it applying within a closed system. People with no scientific background could be (and often are) taken in by this type of pseudo-science. That should not be allowed.
Even as much as dispise religion, I think they should be able to hold a PHD if they earned it from a reputable university. I think it helps keep science honest.
i agree with this kid ^^Des.Kmal wrote:
Why the fuck not? Are you saying that they cannot get PHD's because of Religion? Are you insane? Wtf?
If they meet the requirements and pass the tests, give them their fucking degree.
What if you couldnt get something, like a degree because of something you believed in? Wouldnt that piss you off?
Stryyker, I thought better of you.
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal
Because their opinions differ from you, they shouldn't be able to establish a livelihood?stryyker wrote:
I watched a movie today called "Darwin: The Deadly Secret"
I was made by a team of Christian phD's, It overlays the "dangers" of evolution to the normal "person".
It said many things I did not agree with, like saying "The facts of Evolution have been proven wrong almost all the time". And things of that nature.
Now, my question to you is, should Religious fanatics be allowed to obtain a phD with such standars? Should these scientists be allowed to turn 100,000,000 people worldwide against centuries old evidence?
-edit- rephrased question
Do you agree with what Christian phD's are teaching.
-editedit-
not medical doctors
If they are going against the entire scientific and logical community, then no, they shouldn't be given any assistance to make their wacked out nonsense ideas have some basis in science.mKmalfunction wrote:
Because their opinions differ from you, they shouldn't be able to establish a livelihood?stryyker wrote:
I watched a movie today called "Darwin: The Deadly Secret"
I was made by a team of Christian phD's, It overlays the "dangers" of evolution to the normal "person".
It said many things I did not agree with, like saying "The facts of Evolution have been proven wrong almost all the time". And things of that nature.
Now, my question to you is, should Religious fanatics be allowed to obtain a phD with such standars? Should these scientists be allowed to turn 100,000,000 people worldwide against centuries old evidence?
-edit- rephrased question
Do you agree with what Christian phD's are teaching.
-editedit-
not medical doctors
I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that these people probably hold the American idea of a PhD and not the more traditional form.
As far as I'm concerned many American Ph.D.'s aren't worth the paper they're printed on... I suspect those of the creators of the video fall into this category... anyway I'm sure I could find a website to buy a PhD if I looked hard enough...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhD#Criticism wrote:
Within the USA, the value of a Ph.D. degree is often the topic of scholarly debate and criticism, given its almost exclusive concern with research and publication and the alleged neglect of numerous other faculty responsibilities that include teaching, collegial evaluation, collective and individual curricular planning, etc.
As long as they don't have PhD's from reputable universitys because of their research into the dangers of Darwinism etc then I don't care.
EDIT:
This perfectly illustrates the difference between the UK and the US system... if someone gets shunned for their research here in the UK then they are categorically NOT allowed to get their PhD. Approval of peers is a major component.jonsimon wrote:
They have every right to their degrees providing they earned them, but we should still shun them.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-11-06 14:25:04)
Universities should not judge someone's ability to hold a degree on what their opinion is. If someone wants to get a Ph.D. in Physics, but they still believe in creationism, that's their business. I think it's really ridiculous, but that shouldn't prevent them from getting the degree.
QFTUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
This perfectly illustrates the difference between the UK and the US system... if someone gets shunned for their research here in the UK then they are categorically NOT allowed to get their PhD. Approval of peers is a major component.
It should not be possible for someone to get a PhD in something if their peers do not approve it. I didn't realise that could happen in the US, that's terrible. If you write a research paper, no matter how much effort you've put into it or how well it is written, if the content is bullshit you shouldn't be getting your PhD.
It would depend on the University that has awarded the Phd. Not to many respected Universities would award a Phd in Creationism..
-1 if I still had the option. Don't want to know the answer? Don't ask the question...Jussimies wrote:
whatever idc.CameronPoe wrote:
A Doctorate - a Doctor of Philosophy - not a medical doctor but an expert in their profession. For instance a doctor of engineering, etc.Jussimies wrote:
what is phd?????
If you get a PhD (some universities use other names but its the same thing) you get to call yourself "doctor". If you study Chemistry you're a doctor of Chemistry, if you study Philosophy then you're a doctor of Philosophy^1....whichever way you call it, it takes about eight years of hard work.
Just the sort of "doctor" most people come into contact with is the sort that checks their pulse, blood pressure etc so most people call them their doctor...(doctor of medicine)
If you like doctor who, you'll talk about your favourite doctor...for me its a toss-up between John Pertwee and Tom Baker...
^1 I believe Oxford call a doctorate level Philosophy degree a D.Phil...
Last edited by Pubic (2006-11-07 04:34:39)
If "creationist" theory is so nonsensical and evolutionary theory is so convincing, then there is no issue and no need to ban it. The whole subject of our origins will be debated until the end of time and both sides should be able to speak. Banning the side one disagrees with is wrong, from either end of the spectrum. Evolution and intelligent design should be compared side by side to allow people decide for themselves. Otherwise, if one side is entrenched in our schools and universities, it's indoctrination, not learning.Bertster7 wrote:
Absolutely not!stryyker wrote:
Do you agree with what Christian phD's are teaching.
They should be allowed to get PhDs though, if they do the work they need. The teachings of many of these Creationist scientists is just nonsensical though and should be banned. Spreading misinformation is a very bad thing. It is easy for anyone with any sort of scientific background to laugh off the theories of Creationists, who always make blatant mistakes (or deliberate ommisions) from the science backing them up. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one they like to misquote all the time, they always leave out the part about it applying within a closed system. People with no scientific background could be (and often are) taken in by this type of pseudo-science. That should not be allowed.
It's kind of like "the gays" looking to call civil unions "marriages" a Phd is awarded for research in a Scientific discipline.. you can see where the problems arise with Phd's awarded in creationism. non?Stingray24 wrote:
If "creationist" theory is so nonsensical and evolutionary theory is so convincing, then there is no issue and no need to ban it. The whole subject of our origins will be debated until the end of time and both sides should be able to speak. Banning the side one disagrees with is wrong, from either end of the spectrum. Evolution and intelligent design should be compared side by side to allow people decide for themselves. Otherwise, if one side is entrenched in our schools and universities, it's indoctrination, not learning.Bertster7 wrote:
Absolutely not!stryyker wrote:
Do you agree with what Christian phD's are teaching.
They should be allowed to get PhDs though, if they do the work they need. The teachings of many of these Creationist scientists is just nonsensical though and should be banned. Spreading misinformation is a very bad thing. It is easy for anyone with any sort of scientific background to laugh off the theories of Creationists, who always make blatant mistakes (or deliberate ommisions) from the science backing them up. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one they like to misquote all the time, they always leave out the part about it applying within a closed system. People with no scientific background could be (and often are) taken in by this type of pseudo-science. That should not be allowed.
No. Doctor of Philosophy doesn't define what philosophy one is allowed to align with. Think it's nonsensical, disagree, or whatever, but calling someone's degree into question is just lame.IG-Calibre wrote:
It's kind of like "the gays" looking to call civil unions "marriages" a Phd is awarded for research in a Scientific discipline.. you can see where the problems arise with Phd's awarded in creationism. non?Stingray24 wrote:
If "creationist" theory is so nonsensical and evolutionary theory is so convincing, then there is no issue and no need to ban it. The whole subject of our origins will be debated until the end of time and both sides should be able to speak. Banning the side one disagrees with is wrong, from either end of the spectrum. Evolution and intelligent design should be compared side by side to allow people decide for themselves. Otherwise, if one side is entrenched in our schools and universities, it's indoctrination, not learning.Bertster7 wrote:
Absolutely not!
They should be allowed to get PhDs though, if they do the work they need. The teachings of many of these Creationist scientists is just nonsensical though and should be banned. Spreading misinformation is a very bad thing. It is easy for anyone with any sort of scientific background to laugh off the theories of Creationists, who always make blatant mistakes (or deliberate ommisions) from the science backing them up. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one they like to misquote all the time, they always leave out the part about it applying within a closed system. People with no scientific background could be (and often are) taken in by this type of pseudo-science. That should not be allowed.
A doctor of of Philosophy is a D.phil - one doesn't have to state which particular philosophy one studied to obtain it (it is unnecessary), the fact is one cannot be awarded a PhD in Philosophy as a PhD applies to research in a Scientific discipline (from real Universities) - however both are entitled to be addressed as Doctor.Stingray24 wrote:
No. Doctor of Philosophy doesn't define what philosophy one is allowed to align with. Think it's nonsensical, disagree, or whatever, but calling someone's degree into question is just lame.IG-Calibre wrote:
It's kind of like "the gays" looking to call civil unions "marriages" a Phd is awarded for research in a Scientific discipline.. you can see where the problems arise with Phd's awarded in creationism. non?Stingray24 wrote:
If "creationist" theory is so nonsensical and evolutionary theory is so convincing, then there is no issue and no need to ban it. The whole subject of our origins will be debated until the end of time and both sides should be able to speak. Banning the side one disagrees with is wrong, from either end of the spectrum. Evolution and intelligent design should be compared side by side to allow people decide for themselves. Otherwise, if one side is entrenched in our schools and universities, it's indoctrination, not learning.
Everyone has their bias. We all start with presuppositions whether we admit it or not..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
. . . Also people should keep in mind that no matter how many little issues people keep coming up with evolution, it's nothing compared to how unfathomable wrong the scientific theory of creation is.
To answer the questions then, yes they have the right to have a PhD in whatever the hell they got a PhD in. Yes they can spout completely stupid, biased unscientific crap wherever they want. And yes you have the right to say they may have a PhD but they're still stupid, wrong and nuts and ignore them completely
By adaption to the environment, such as tempature, does not have to do anything with the changing of your genes. I have the same genes, and live in America, as someone who was born in Kenya, or China. The have adapted to the difference in the environment where they are, but we have the same genes.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not what evolution is. A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping this, I can't see why.dubbs wrote:
Lets me back Stingray up here. Evolution is a theory that tries to determine where the orgin of life began. Adaption is the theory that says that live changes because of it environment.jonsimon wrote:
Evolution never comments on the formation of the universe or the beginnings of life, only on the evolution, or change, of biological systems. Sorry, stingray, you lose.wiki wrote:
Evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes.
Also, if you were to reseach evolution in depth, it does try to explain where life on Earth came from.
Ah... You're so right... But you're so wrong... But someone's going to pick you up on it, so it better be me...dubbs wrote:
Adaption to the environment, such as tempature, does not have to do anything with the changing of your genes. I have the same genes, and live in America, as someone who was born in Kenya, or China. The have adapted to the difference in the environment where they are, but we have the same genes.
Also, if you were to reseach evolution in depth, it does try to explain where life on Earth came from.
Right, some 'adaption' is at the genetic level - different skin colour for example - a black person born in the UK still grows up black. A white person born in africa still grows up white. That is adaption to the environment at gentic level.
However, adaption at the level of 'if I live at a higher (or lower in southern hemisphere) lattitude I would be more 'adapted' to cold weather' type that whoever it was was talking about, that stuff isn't genetic.